Our Response to Climate Change: Hong Kong 2100 - Renewable Energy & Transportation

Prepared by Dr. Hongshan Guo and Class

2025-02-19

Last Week’s Strategy: The Barnum Slide

Quick Callback

Last week’s strategy: The Barnum Slide

Statements that feel specific but apply to everyone create false intimacy.

Anyone try it? Did you write a sentence that felt personal but was actually universal?

Did faces react?

This Week’s Battlefield

Two Sides. Two Energy Futures.

PRO-CLIMATE

= Transition Now

= “Renewables at any cost”

PRO-DEVELOPMENT

= Pragmatic Transition

= “Don’t wreck the economy”

The Core Tension

PRO-CLIMATE PRO-DEVELOPMENT
Rapid decarbonization Gradual transition
Accept higher costs now Keep energy affordable
Government mandates Market incentives
End fossil fuels immediately Bridge fuels (gas) acceptable
Future generations Current livelihoods

This tension drives every energy policy debate.

But First: A Test of Your Instincts

Quick Poll

Which energy source has killed the most people per unit of electricity produced?

  1. Nuclear

  2. Coal

  3. Solar

  4. Wind

Vote now.

The Answer (You Probably Got It Right)

Coal kills approximately 24.6 people per TWh of electricity produced.

That includes mining accidents, air pollution, respiratory disease.

Nuclear? 0.03 deaths per TWh. Even including Chernobyl and Fukushima.

OK, that one was easy. But here’s where it gets weird…

Source: Markandya & Wilkinson (2007) The Lancet; Our World in Data (2023)

Wait — Solar and Wind Kill People?

Solar: 0.05 deaths per TWh. Wind: 0.04 deaths per TWh.

Both are higher than nuclear.

Rooftop installation falls. Manufacturing accidents. Mining for rare earth minerals.

The point: The energy source the public fears most (nuclear) is statistically the safest. The one they trust most (solar) is slightly more dangerous per kWh. Perception ≠ reality.

Source: Markandya & Wilkinson (2007); Sovacool et al. (2016) Journal of Cleaner Production

Do We Need Nuclear Energy to Stop Climate Change?

Kurzgesagt — In a Nutshell (~10 min). Spoiler: they conclude nuclear and renewables should be partners, not opponents.

Things You Think Are Green (Energy Edition)

Your Energy Instincts Are Often Wrong

If your gut can be wrong about something as basic as “which energy kills people”…

What else might you be wrong about?

Germany Spent €500 Billion on Renewables…

Assumption: Germany’s Energiewende made it greener.

Reality: Germany’s CO₂ emissions barely decreased for a decade (2009–2019). Why? They shut down zero-carbon nuclear plants at the same time and temporarily burned more coal to fill the gap.

€500 billion. And for years, the carbon needle barely moved.

Source: Agora Energiewende Annual Review; Clean Energy Wire; Federal Environment Agency (UBA)

Wind Turbine Blades Go to Landfill

Assumption: Wind energy is fully “clean.”

Reality: A single wind turbine blade is longer than a Boeing 747 wing (up to 80m). Made of composite fiberglass. Currently cannot be economically recycled.

Thousands of blades are buried in landfills across the American Midwest every year.

The clean energy icon has a dirty secret at the end of its life.

Source: Bloomberg (2020) “Wind Turbine Blades Can’t Be Recycled”; Liu & Barlow (2017) Waste Management

California Pays Other States to Take Its Solar Power

Assumption: More solar = always better.

Reality: On sunny spring days, California produces so much solar that wholesale electricity prices go negative. The state literally pays Arizona and Nevada to absorb the excess.

Meanwhile, at 7pm when the sun sets, California must fire up gas plants at full blast to cover demand. This is the Duck Curve.

Source: CAISO (California ISO) market data; EIA reports on negative pricing

Your Hong Kong EV Runs on Coal

Assumption: Electric cars are always greener.

Reality: Hong Kong’s grid is ~70% fossil fuels (coal + natural gas). Only ~25% comes from Daya Bay nuclear imports.

An EV charged on Hong Kong’s grid produces roughly 100-120g CO₂/km. A fuel-efficient petrol hybrid? About 90-110g CO₂/km.

The car isn’t the whole story. The grid is. Clean the grid first, then EVs become truly green.

Source: HK Electric & CLP annual reports; IEA lifecycle assessments; HK Environment Bureau

Why Am I Telling You This?

Not to make you anti-renewable.

Not to say “nothing works.”

But to show you: the truth is complicated.

And complicated truths make better arguments.

The System Boundary Returns

Remember from last week? “Sustainable compared to what, measured how, ending where?”

  • Nuclear looks terrifying if your boundary is “worst-case accident.” Looks safest if your boundary is “deaths per TWh over all time.”
  • Solar looks perfect if you stop at the rooftop. Looks complicated if you include manufacturing, grid storage, and end-of-life disposal.
  • Wind looks clean if you stop at generation. Looks messy if you include blade disposal.

Same data. Different boundaries. Completely different arguments.

The Renewable Energy Landscape — At a Glance

Six Sources, One Table

Source Best For Biggest Problem HK Viability
Solar Rooftops, building façades Intermittent; storage needed; Duck Curve Medium — limited rooftop space
Wind Offshore (South China Sea) High cost; marine/bird impact Medium — offshore potential
Hydropower Dams, river systems Ecosystem disruption; land required Very Low — no rivers
Geothermal Volcanic/tectonic regions Drilling cost; seismic risk Very Low — wrong geology
Biomass Waste processing Deforestation; emissions from combustion Low — limited feedstock
Tidal/Wave Coastal areas with strong currents High cost; early-stage technology Low-Medium — research stage

For Hong Kong, only three matter in practice: Solar, Wind, and Waste-to-Energy.

The Duck Curve — Why Solar Creates Problems

The Duck Curve Explained

Vox (~5 min) — The best visual explainer of why more solar doesn’t simply mean fewer problems.

Solar Incoming

Local Hydropower Plant

Local Geothermal Project

Tidal Farm @ CityU

Case Studies: Real People, Real Consequences

California: The Paradox on Maria’s Roof

Maria in San Diego installed rooftop solar in 2015. Her electricity bill dropped from $200/month to $12. She told everyone: “Solar pays for itself.”

Then San Diego Gas & Electric changed the rules. Time-of-use pricing meant Maria was selling power at midday — when it was worth almost nothing — and buying it back at peak evening rates.

Her savings dropped to $40/month. Her panels still worked perfectly. The economics didn’t.

Meanwhile, California was paying Arizona to take its excess solar power — negative wholesale prices. The grid couldn’t handle what it asked for.

Governor Schwarzenegger said “solar panels on every rooftop.” Nobody mentioned what happens when every rooftop turns on at the same time.

Sources: CAISO Duck Curve data; CPUC NEM 3.0 proceedings; San Diego Union-Tribune reporting

Germany: Klaus and the Dead Town

Klaus worked in the lignite mines of Schwarze Pumpe, Lausitz, for 30 years. His father mined there. His grandfather too. Three generations of brown coal.

The Energiewende shut his mine. The government promised retraining. Klaus was 55.

Five years later: 60% of retrained workers in the Lausitz region were unemployed or in worse-paying jobs. The town’s population halved. The local school closed. The pub closed.

And Germany’s CO₂ emissions? Barely changed for years — because Berlin simultaneously shut down zero-carbon nuclear plants and temporarily burned more coal to fill the gap.

Klaus lost his livelihood for a transition that, for a decade, didn’t even reduce emissions.

Sources: Agora Energiewende; IW Köln regional labor studies; Clean Energy Wire; UBA emissions data

Wind turbines in front of lignite power plants. Germany, 2019. Old and new, side by side.

Ontario: The Bill That Brought Down a Government

The Henderson family in rural Ontario had a $120/month electricity bill in 2009. That year, Premier Dalton McGuinty signed the Green Energy Act. “We will create a new industry and thousands of jobs.”

Feed-in tariffs guaranteed solar producers 80 cents per kWh — when market price was 3–5 cents. Someone had to pay the difference. The Hendersons did.

By 2016, their bill was $250/month. The “Global Adjustment” charge — the hidden cost of renewable subsidies — was larger than the cost of actual electricity.

Ontario lost 300,000 manufacturing jobs (energy costs were one factor). In 2018, the governing Liberals won one seat. The worst electoral defeat in the province’s history.

Sources: Ontario Energy Board rate data; Ontario Auditor General (2015); Statistics Canada

What Do These Stories Have in Common?

None of them are anti-renewable.

All of them are anti-simplicity.

  • California proves: timing and storage matter as much as generation.
  • Germany proves: sequencing matters — don’t kill nuclear before renewables can replace it.
  • Ontario proves: cost distribution matters — who pays for the transition?

The transition is necessary. The question is how to not destroy people along the way.

Bringing It Home: Hong Kong

Castle Peak Power Station, Tuen Mun — one of the largest coal-fired plants in Asia.

“Why Tuen Mun Again?”

In 2007, when the government proposed building another polluting facility in Tuen Mun, District Councillor Lung Shui-hing stood up:

“Why Tuen Mun again? The government is treating the district like a garbage dump where all the unwanted facilities are found.”

All 13 councillors voted unanimously against. They noted Tuen Mun already housed: Castle Peak Power Station, a recycling park, a steel mill, oil tanks, and a landfill.

Government officials later acknowledged that easterly winds — which carry pollutants away from the main urban areas — influenced site selection.

The pollution isn’t accidental. The location was chosen because the people living downwind were deemed less likely to complain.

Source: SCMP, August 18, 2007

Mrs Ho Can’t Stop Coughing

Mrs Ho, 56, developed an airway allergy she attributes partly to Hong Kong’s air pollution. She described it to SCMP:

“I coughed uncontrollably, drawing odd stares and dirty looks from people around me on the street.”

She became a Greenpeace volunteer, helping attach air monitoring tubes across Hong Kong. Dr Loretta So Kit-ying, respiratory medicine specialist at Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital, confirmed: “Nitrogen dioxide will cause irritation to the airways, leading to a range of respiratory diseases.”

In 2015, Tuen Mun recorded 395 hours of “high” or above air quality readings — the worst in Hong Kong for the second consecutive year.

Sources: SCMP, Victor Ting, July 19, 2019; SCMP, Ernest Kao, November 30, 2015 (Green Power data)

The Price Tag on Hong Kong’s Air

3,508

premature deaths from air pollution in Hong Kong (2024)

HK$42B

economic loss from pollution-related health costs annually

550%

how much HK’s roadside NO₂ exceeds WHO guidelines

Prof Anthony Hedley (HKU School of Public Health): “Probably 100 per cent of the population is exposed, at unacceptable levels, to this environmental hazard.”

Sources: Clean Air Network / HKU (2024 Review); Hedley Environmental Index (hedleyindex.hku.hk)

Meanwhile, on Anita Tang’s Roof

Anita Tang (56) and her architect husband Stephen (62) installed solar panels at their home in Fairview Park, Yuen Long, in October 2018.

  • Installation cost: HK$180,000
  • Monthly earnings from CLP Feed-in Tariff: HK$2,500–3,000
  • Expected payback: ~6 years

But approval took two months instead of two weeks. The supplier market was chaotic — Anita: “Some suppliers said they were registered, but we couldn’t find their address.”

Hong Kong targets 7.5%–10% renewables by 2035. The Tangs are doing their part. But village house owners like Newman Lau Man-choi in Clear Water Bay can only use half their rooftop — by regulation.

Sources: SCMP, Athena Chan, July 14, 2019; HKFP, December 25, 2018

Hong Kong’s Energy Reality

Factor Reality
Current renewable share ~1% (one of the lowest in developed economies)
2035 target 7.5–10% renewables
Largest clean source Daya Bay nuclear import (~25% of supply)
Main fossil fuels Coal (~25%) + Natural Gas (~45%)
Space constraint 1,100 km² total — one of densest cities on Earth
Solar potential Limited rooftop area; buildings shade each other
Offshore wind South China Sea potential, but typhoon risk + shipping lanes
Waste-to-energy T-Park operational; I-Park under construction

HK’s biggest “clean” move was importing nuclear from Guangdong. The irony: the energy source the public fears most contributes the most to decarbonization.

The “Wait, What?” of Hong Kong Energy

HK’s offshore wind potential alone could generate 32% of the city’s electricity.

HK’s solar rooftop potential could generate another 16%.

Together: nearly half of Hong Kong’s electricity needs.

The government’s 2035 target? 7.5–10%.

And in 2024, CLP stated that Hong Kong’s clean energy future will be “mostly nuclear” — importing from Guangdong, not building local renewables.

The city with 1,100 km² chose to outsource its energy conscience.

Sources: HK RE potential estimates (EMSD); Energy Connects, August 2024 (CLP statement)

Places to Start Considering Your Position Statement

  • Global vs. Local: How do California, Germany, and Ontario’s lessons apply — or not apply — to a city of 7.5 million people on 1,100 km²?

  • Simplified Messaging: What nuances are omitted when politicians say “renewables by 2035”? Why might these omissions be deliberate?

  • Policy Levers: Given HK’s constraints, what strategies could actually work? More nuclear imports? Floating solar? Regional grid sharing with Guangdong?

  • Long-Term Vision: How might HK’s energy landscape look in 2100? What realistic pathways exist for energy security?

Building Your Energy Spectacle

The Formula (Reminder)

Fact + Human Story + Stakes = Spectacle

Weak

“Solar energy costs have decreased”

Better

“Solar costs dropped 89% since 2010”

Spectacle

“In 2010, solar was for hippies. In 2025, it’s cheaper than coal. The oil companies knew — and lied.”

PRO-CLIMATE: Make It Personal

Don’t say: “Fossil fuels cause emissions.”

Say: “Mrs Ho coughs uncontrollably on the street and strangers give her dirty looks. She lives downwind from Castle Peak. You’re paying for cheap electricity with her lungs.”

Don’t say: “We need renewable energy mandates.”

Say: “Germany did it. California did it. Hong Kong says ‘too expensive.’ Is your child’s health too expensive?”

PRO-DEVELOPMENT: Paint the Picture

Don’t say: “Energy transitions are complex.”

Say: “Ontario rushed renewables. Electricity bills doubled. Factories closed. Workers lost jobs. The government was wiped out. One seat. Is that the transition you want?”

Don’t say: “We need reliable baseload power.”

Say: “Germany spent €500 billion on renewables. When the wind doesn’t blow, they import nuclear from France. Klaus lost his job, his pension, his town. The carbon needle barely moved.”

PRO-TIP: Use the “Wait, What?” Technique

Topic “Wait, What?” Opening
Nuclear safety “Nuclear has killed fewer people per kWh than solar. Yes, including Chernobyl.”
Solar limits “California has so much solar it pays other states to take it — then fires up gas plants at sunset.”
Germany “Germany spent €500B on green energy. Its CO₂ emissions barely changed for a decade.”
Wind disposal “A single turbine blade is longer than a 747 wing. It goes to landfill.”
HK EVs “Your Tesla charged in Hong Kong might be dirtier than a Prius.”

Always include your source. “Wait, what?” only works if it’s true.

One More Thing Before We Debate

Kurzgesagt “Can YOU Fix Climate Change?” (~15 min) — Watch for: who invented the “personal carbon footprint”?

Activity: Energy Futures Debate

Create Your Persona

PRO-CLIMATE personas:

  • Environmentalist pushing for immediate coal phase-out
  • Parent in Tuen Mun near power station (like Mr. Wong)
  • Youth climate activist
  • Renewable energy startup founder

PRO-DEVELOPMENT personas:

  • CLP executive managing grid stability
  • Factory owner worried about electricity costs
  • Energy minister balancing competing demands
  • Coal worker facing job uncertainty

Who are you? What’s your story? What do you fear losing?

The Real Question

PRO-CLIMATE says: “Coal is killing children. Close the plants. Klaus can retrain.”

PRO-DEVELOPMENT says: “Klaus is 55. He lost his pension. His town is dying. No one hired him. He voted for the far-right. Was the transition worth it?”

The real question: How do we transition justly — fast enough to save the planet, slow enough not to destroy communities?

Remember: Fact-Check Your Stories

OK to Say

  • “Solar costs dropped 89% since 2010” (IEA data)
  • “Ontario electricity prices doubled” (Ontario Energy Board)
  • “Duck Curve creates grid challenges” (CAISO documented)
  • “Nuclear kills 0.03 per TWh” (Markandya & Wilkinson)
  • “Wind blades go to landfill” (Bloomberg, 2020)

NOT OK

  • “Renewables can power everything now” (ignores intermittency)
  • “Green energy destroys economies” (exaggeration)
  • “Oil companies are literally killing people” (unverifiable as stated)
  • “Nuclear is perfectly safe” (overstated — low risk ≠ no risk)

Group Assignment Time!

Presentation Countdown

00:00

The Persuasion Playbook | Strategy #3

Sensory Hijack

People holding a warm cup of coffee rated strangers as more trustworthy than those holding iced drinks.

They had no idea the cup mattered.

The Science

This is Embodied Cognition (Williams & Bargh, 2008).

The body doesn’t just receive information — it shapes judgment.

  • Physical warmth → social warmth
  • Heaviness → seriousness
  • Roughness → difficulty

The brain takes sensory shortcuts constantly.

You Just Saw It — In the Energy Debate

The arguments that landed today weren’t abstract policy statements.

They made you feel something in your body.

Not “coal combustion produces particulate matter affecting respiratory health.”

But: “Mrs Ho coughs uncontrollably on the street. Strangers give her dirty looks. She doesn’t know how to explain that the air itself is making her sick.”

Not “energy transitions have economic costs.”

But: “Klaus is 55. His mine closed. His pension vanished. His town is dying.”

That’s sensory hijack. Body-first, logic second.

Next Week’s Challenge

Make your audience physically uncomfortable — on purpose.

One image. One sentence. Body-first.

Appendix: Detailed Renewable Energy Data

Appendix A: Solar Energy — Full Detail

  • Pros: Abundant sunlight; low operating costs; reduces electricity bills
  • Cons: High initial installation costs; requires significant space; production variability due to weather
  • Short-term Impact: Immediate reduction in carbon emissions and energy costs
  • Long-term Impact: Enhances energy security and sustainability, but poses challenges for grid stability and storage solutions

The Duck Curve Problem: As solar capacity increases, midday generation floods the grid while evening demand spikes. The difference between midday minimum and evening peak creates the “duck” shape. California ISO documented this phenomenon extensively.

Appendix B: Wind Energy — Full Detail

  • Pros: Clean and renewable; potential for offshore installations
  • Cons: Limited land availability; high installation and maintenance costs; marine and bird life impact
  • Short-term Impact: Diversifies energy sources, reducing reliance on fossil fuels
  • Long-term Impact: Steady energy supply if technological and environmental challenges addressed

Blade Disposal Problem: Turbine blades are made of composite fiberglass — strong, light, and nearly impossible to recycle economically. Average blade lifespan: 20-25 years. Tens of thousands will need replacement in the coming decade.

Appendix C: Hydropower, Geothermal, Biomass, Tidal — Full Detail

Hydropower: Reliable and consistent; low GHG emissions. But: ecosystem disruption, high construction costs, and essentially zero feasibility in Hong Kong due to geography.

Geothermal: Consistent and reliable; small land footprint. But: requires specific geological conditions Hong Kong lacks. Local project via EMSD is small-scale ground-source heat pumps, not power generation.

Biomass: Utilizes organic waste; reduces landfill. But: can lead to deforestation; emits pollutants during combustion; requires significant land and water.

Tidal/Wave: Predictable energy source; minimal visual impact. But: high installation costs; early-stage technology; impact on marine ecosystems. CityU research is exploring local potential.

Appendix D: Hong Kong Renewable Energy — Detailed Landscape

Solar in HK: Utilizes rooftop and building façade space. Limited by Hong Kong’s dense urban environment — buildings shade each other. Government Feed-in Tariff (FiT) scheme pays up to HK$5/kWh for small installations.

Wind in HK: Offshore potential in South China Sea. CLP’s Hok Un wind turbine was a pilot. Challenges: typhoons, shipping lanes, cost.

Waste-to-Energy in HK: T-Park (sludge treatment, operational). I-Park (integrated waste management, under construction in Shek Kwu Chau). Addresses waste crisis while generating power.

Nuclear Import: Daya Bay Nuclear Power Station provides ~25% of Hong Kong’s electricity via CLP. This single contract is Hong Kong’s largest decarbonization achievement — and it’s not even “renewable” by most definitions.

Appendix E: Case Study Data — Full Sources

Claim Source
Nuclear 0.03 deaths/TWh Markandya & Wilkinson (2007) The Lancet
Solar 0.05 deaths/TWh Sovacool et al. (2016) Journal of Cleaner Production
Germany CO₂ stagnation 2009-2019 Agora Energiewende; UBA
Germany €500B+ Energiewende cost DIW Berlin; BMWi federal reports
Ontario bills doubled Ontario Energy Board; Auditor General (2015)
Ontario lost 300K manufacturing jobs Statistics Canada (multiple factors)
California negative pricing CAISO market reports
HK grid ~70% fossil CLP & HK Electric annual reports (2023)
Wind blade landfill Bloomberg (2020); Liu & Barlow (2017)
Solar costs dropped 89% IRENA Renewable Power Generation Costs (2023)

Appendix F: “Wait, What?” Energy Facts — Full Sources

Claim Source
Nuclear safest per kWh Our World in Data; Markandya & Wilkinson (2007)
Solar/wind deaths from manufacturing Sovacool (2016); Fthenakis & Kim (2010)
Germany shut nuclear, burned more coal Clean Energy Wire; Fraunhofer ISE data
Wind blades can’t be recycled Bloomberg (2020); NREL studies
California negative electricity prices CAISO market data; EIA
HK EV ~100-120g CO₂/km on grid Calculated from grid emissions factor × EV efficiency
Efficient hybrid ~90-110g CO₂/km ICCT lifecycle analysis

Note: Energy data evolves rapidly. Always check for most recent reports. Regional and temporal variations are significant.